Enzyme Bio-Battery Runs on Ethanol

mpthompson writes "According to this article at New Scientist.com substantial progress is being made on enzyme-catalyzed ethanol based batteries to run cell phones and laptops. Such batteries promise to be cheaper, safer and less toxic than previously demonstrated methanol based fuel cells."

Comments

The major problem of the next year may well be...

[ketamine-bp]

Overheating.

We all know that the enzymes hate heat - that is, they get denatured by heat. From what I feel on my lap when a laptop was put on it, I really wonder how do something as sensitive as enzyme withstand the working temperature of a computer (I guess that'll be one of the application, from the article).

When you shrink that (from the article, they are going to.), the problem goes even more wild... ;-)

i also run...

[Anonymous Coward]

I also run off of Ethanol(everclear). I can only imagine the fun that would come out of this.... but seriously if these batteries were meant to be rechargeable how could this been done at all with current alcohol laws?

"yes I'd like to buy some everclear for my 'er laptop" *hic

Biotech Ethanol

[airuck]

Novozymes Biotech in Davis, California is selectively breeding better enzymes for converting the cellulose in corn by-products to fermentable sugars. Who knows, maybe some day Kansas will power your calls.

So will they last longer?

[drdanny_orig]

I don't care if they make batteries out of peanut butter. All I want to know is when do we get a wireless phone that only needs recharging once a month or less? Thanks, I'll take the answer off-line.

Bio-engineering

[panurge]

It makes sense. The development of life actually demonstrates that carbon-chain based molecules are a good place to start when you want to do something. Until the twentieth century the main source of applied energy was animal movement, an incredibly complicated way of obtaining movement from the breakdown of sugars, starch and fat. Even now, most cars don't last as long as a horse, so clearly the longevity problem is soluble. It's just that we have only very recently been able to start using that kind of technology deliberately instead of finding it by accident.

Now excuse me, my fuel cell needs a shot and then it wants to go to the bathroom.

Re:Bio-engineering

[Milo Fungus]

The thing that keeps living systems living is that they have mechanisms in place to repair themselves. From what the article said, no self-regenerating systems are in place in the fuel cell. They're counting on the original build to last. Your horse lives so many years and walks so many miles because it can regenerate damaged muscles. Unless the fuel cell were equipped with the enzyme's gene and the machinery to translate the information in the gene into newly synthesized enzyme, this fuel cell will not last as long as your horse.

That raises an interesting question. We're a long way off from having a fuel cell that could synthesize new enzyme, but supposing one were invented should it be patentable? The best way to build one would be to start with a living organism and tweak it. But if it were built from scratch would it be patentable? (I realize that living organisms are patentable, thanks to the ineptitude of the USPTO, but all patented organisms are tweaked versions of natural organisms. This would be something different.)

Cost

[Stripsurge]

Yes, ethanol is cheap to make but expensive to buy. There'd have to some law changes to avoid having to pay the taxes associated with buying consumable alcohol. Using ethanol in the chem lab is pricy.

Re:Cost

[Avakado]

There'd have to some law changes to avoid having to pay the taxes associated with buying consumable alcohol. Using ethanol in the chem lab is pricy.

Maybe that's one of the reasons why spirits not meant for consumption have added stuff that makes you vomit if you drink it?

Re:use hydrogen fuel cells

[kiatoa]

Nuclear plants may be clean in responsible hands. Unfortunately Corporations and Governments often seem to prove themselves rather less than responsible and careful. Too bad really. There would be no need for constrictive environmental laws if people (individuals, Corporations and Governments) would be conscientious in their actions.

As for those batteries, I wonder what will be more efficient: My wood fired steam power plant (2kW, under construction) or farming some grain or plant that can be easily converted by fermentation to alcohol and putting the alcohol into one of those batterys. I'd be delighted to get 15% overall effiency from the steam system (80% if you count the waste heat heating the pool!).

social implications

[frovingslosh]

So here is the next question: a denaturing agent destroys the fuel cell. The (US) tax on non-denatured methanol is so excessive that it prohibits the use of these fuel cells in laptops, not to mention much better uses of the fuel cells, like clean running cars (where even with a road tax the tax would be much lower). So the question is, do we change the law to support this new clean technology, or do we keep an aribratary tax that is both about raising excessive revenue as well as about telling people how to live their lives? And if we get rid of a tax on alcohol to permit these fuel cells, what other rediculous law can replace it to show people that big brother can run their lives better than they can? And can I get laptop methanol without paying a road tax on it? And do methanol and programming really mix?

Re:The major problem of the next year may well be.

[ketamine-bp]

But then the major problem is that the enzymes are replacable in the industrial container, but as I would believe, the battery would probably be disposible (i.e. you can't possibly add enzyme into it)

Moreover, the cross-linked enzyme crystals are able to withstand organic solvents but they are not that heat-stable - and if they are overheated, we can just hope that they don't go denatured, but their specificity to temperature will not change, i.e. Power goes down when temperature goes up or down, ooops.... ;-)

horse pollution

[No Such Agency]

I remember reading a letter to a Victorian science journal complaining about the problem of horse waste in London's streets. The writer declared it an aesthetic and health menace. Fact is, the removal of horse poop was a HUGE problem in pre-automotive urban societies. So they polluted too, just in a relatively non-toxic way (in the sense that horse poop is biodegradable and doesn't give you cancer). I have no data on hand but I assume they solved the problem by having people who cleaned it up and sold it as fertilizer.

And if you think that car pollution "blows away in the wind", you've obviously never been to a REALLY big city with poor emission laws, like Mexico City...